SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 14 2016, 09:00am EDT
Contact:
Email:,info@jewishvoiceforpeace.org
Opportunities and Risks for President Obama's Window of Opportunity re Israel/Palestine
Jewish Voice for Peace policy paper calls on President Obama to lay the groundwork for a future with equality and freedom for both Israelis and Palestinians
WASHINGTON
The period between the election and the inauguration of the president-elect presents an opportunity for President Obama to leave his legacy on Israel/Palestine. Today, Jewish Voice for Peace released a policy paper with recommendations regarding the opportunities and risks of specific actions that President Obama may take before he leaves office.
More than 20 years on, the Oslo peace process has failed to bring about a resolution of the conflict. By enforcing the myth that there is still a viable 'peace process,' the United States has allowed Israel to continue to pursue policies that displace, harm and disenfranchise Palestinians, creating facts on the ground to permanently control Palestinian land while denying Palestinians their basic rights.
Given the indications from President-elect Donald Trump that he will not put pressure on Israel to respect Palestinian rights, and the possibility that he will turn a blind eye to settlement construction and comply with Israeli requests such as moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem to cement Israeli sovereignty there, it is more important than ever that President Obama take action.
In this context, Jewish Voice for Peace recommends that any approach that the Obama Administration may take in the period following the U.S. elections must lay the groundwork for a future with equality and freedom for both Israelis and Palestinians. Should the Administration choose to take action before leaving office, it must take care that whatever step is taken avoids further entrenching inequality and injustice.
Rabbi Joseph Berman, Manager of Government Affairs and Grassroots Advocacy:
"There is a significant risk that a presidential action to establish future parameters for resolving the conflict could have the harmful short term effect of entrenching occupation and discrimination, while delaying the kind of actions necessary for a just and lasting peace for both peoples in the long-term. President Obama should reassert the illegality of the settlements and take concrete action to put pressure on Israel to end its violations of international law. Any potential action must lay the groundwork for the president-elect to reorient U.S. policy around a vision for equality and justice for all peoples in the region."
For more analysis and specific policy recommendations, see Jewish Voice for Peace's policy paper here.
For Jewish Voice for Peace's statement on the results of the presidential election see here.
Jewish Voice for Peace is a national, grassroots organization inspired by Jewish tradition to work for a just and lasting peace according to principles of human rights, equality, and international law for all the people of Israel and Palestine. JVP has over 200,000 online supporters, over 70 chapters, a youth wing, a Rabbinic Council, an Artist Council, an Academic Advisory Council, and an Advisory Board made up of leading U.S. intellectuals and artists.
(510) 465-1777LATEST NEWS
Hegseth Says 6 More Men Killed in Latest Boat Bombings
At least 76 people have been killed in 19 US attacks on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since early September.
Nov 10, 2025
Six people were killed Sunday in US military strikes on what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed were boats smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean, bringing the total death toll from all such reported attacks to at least 76 since early September.
"Yesterday, at the direction of President [Donald] Trump, two lethal kinetic strikes were conducted on two vessels operated by designated terrorist organizations. These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and were transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route in the eastern Pacific," Hegseth said Monday on social media without providing evidence to support his claim.
"Both strikes were conducted in international waters and three male narco-terrorists were aboard each vessel. All six were killed," he added. "No US forces were harmed. Under President Trump, we are protecting the homeland and killing these cartel terrorists who wish to harm our country and its people."
Sunday's attacks raised the death toll in the Trump administration's nine-week campaign to at least 76 people in 19 attacks in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. The US strikes have come amid Trump's deployment of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela and follow the president's approval of covert CIA action and threats to attack inside the oil-rich country.
Last week, Republicans in the US Senate rejected a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at stopping the Trump administration from continuing its bombing of alleged drug boats or attacking Venezuela without lawmakers’ assent, as required by law.
Trump administration officials have admitted that they aren't attempting to identify people aboard boats before or after bombing them. Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) recently told CNN that Pentagon officials briefed her “that they do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes."
Jacobs also said that the administration is not making any effort to imprison survivors of the strikes or prosecute them, “because they could not satisfy the evidentiary burden.”
In the past, drug trafficking in the Caribbean and Pacific has been treated by the US government as a law enforcement issue, with the Coast Guard and other agencies sometimes intercepting boats and arresting those on board if evidence was found, granting them a day in court.
Leaders in Venezuela, Colombia, and other nations; United Nations officials; human rights groups; and Democratic US lawmakers are among those who have condemned the boat bombings as extrajudicial assassination, murder, and war crimes.
While some residents of the Venezuelan villages from which the targeted boats departed have said that many of the men killed in the strikes were running drugs, regional officials and relatives of victims have asserted that numerous men slain in the attacks were not narco-traffickers.
According to an MSNBC investigation published last week, the identities of up to 50 strike victims remain publicly unknown. In a rare display of congressional bipartisanship, Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Mike Turner (R-Ohio), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), and Jason Crow (D-Col.) last week sent a letter to Trump seeking clarification on the administration's legal reasoning for the strikes and asking, "What evidence confirms that those killed were cartel operatives, rather than coerced, deceived, or trafficked civilians?"
"We strongly support the effort to reduce the flow of narcotics into this country," the lawmakers wrote. "This effort, like every action the United States military takes, must be done within the legal, moral, and ethical framework that sets us apart from our adversaries."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Endorsing Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, Sanders Expands Push for 'Fighters' for Working Class in Senate
"We don’t need more corporate Democrats in the Senate. We need Peggy Flanagan, who’ll fight for working people."
Nov 10, 2025
Calling for more Democratic lawmakers who have “the guts to stand up for working people," Sen. Bernie Sanders weighed in on another US Senate primary on Monday, hours after a handful of Democrats agreed to reopen the federal government without Republican concessions on healthcare.
Sanders (I-Vt.), who earlier this year announced his support for Democratic Senate candidates Graham Platner in Maine and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, has now formally endorsed Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan's candidacy for the US Senate.
In his endorsement, Sanders said that the Senate needs lawmakers who will stand up "against the billionaires and the corporate interests," and argued that Flanagan understands the needs of working-class people personally due in part to her own blue-collar background.
"Peggy knows what it is to struggle," he said. "She was raised by a hard-working single mother who needed [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] to help put food on the table and Medicaid for healthcare. And she’s dedicated her career to fighting for working families."
Sanders also hailed Flanagan's accomplishments as both lieutenant governor and Minnesota state legislator, and he said she would work to fight for progressive priorities on a national level.
"Peggy fought to raise the minimum wage and she got it done," he said. "She fought for paid family leave and she got it done. We need fighters who are from the working class and for the working class here in the Senate. Peggy will fight for Medicare for All, to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, and to address the crises we face in childcare, education, and housing."
Sanders concluded his endorsement by arguing that "we don’t need more corporate Democrats in the Senate. We need Peggy Flanagan, who’ll fight for working people."
Progressive political consultant Rebecca Katz hailed Sanders' endorsements of Flanagan, Platner, and El-Sayed, whom she described on X as "three good candidates who understand the stakes and know how to fight back."
Flanagan is running to replace retiring Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who has been serving in the Senate ever since former Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) resigned in 2018. Flanagan will be facing off against Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn), a centrist Democrat who has several endorsements from the Democratic establishment, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
According to Minnesota Reformer, Flanagan has also scored endorsements from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who both stumped for her at the Minnesota State Fair this past summer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After 'Bonkers' 5th Circuit Ruling, Supreme Court to Hear Mail-In Ballot Case
While experts hope the justices will reverse an "objectively insane" appellate decision, a ruling in favor of the Republican National Committee could reduce the rights of Americans who vote by mail.
Nov 10, 2025
As President Donald Trump on Monday pardoned leaders who tried to overturn his 2020 loss, the US Supreme Court took up the national Republican Party's argument that counting mailed ballots shortly after Election Day violates federal law.
Voting by mail has long been a target of the GOP president, who has falsely claimed that the practice fuels voter fraud. This case concerns a Mississippi law that allows mailed ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted as long as they arrive within five business days, which three Trump appointees on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down last year.
That lawsuit was brought by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Mississippi Libertarian Party. Another Republican, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch‚ is asking the nation's top court to reject the 5th Circuit's decision, arguing that it "defies statutory text, conflicts with this court's precedent, and—if left to stand—will have destabilizing nationwide ramifications."
The Supreme Court—which has a conservative supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—agreed to hear Watson v. RNC and decide "whether the federal Election Day statutes preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal Election Day to be received by election officials after that day."
The Supreme Court will review an objectively insane 5th Circuit decision that prohibited states from counting ballots that were mailed before Election Day but arrive shortly after. (More than half the states have such laws.) www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) November 10, 2025 at 9:44 AM
The Associated Press pointed out Monday that "Mississippi is among 18 states and the District of Columbia that accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long as the ballots are postmarked on or before that date," and "an additional 14 states allow the counting of late-arriving ballots from some eligible voters, including overseas US service members and their families."
Legal experts have condemned the appellate decision as "awful" and "bonkers." The justices are expected to hear arguments early next year and issue a ruling by the end of June, months before the crucial midterm elections.
National Vote At Home Institute executive director Barbara Smith Warner welcomed their decision to take the case and potentially reverse the 5th Circuit's "upside-down" opinion, telling Democracy Docket: "The idea that a ballot that is postmarked on or by Election Day and received afterwards... is like voting after Election Day? That is ridiculous."
Unfortunately I am here to tell you: it's time to worry about what the Supreme Court is going to do to mail ballots postmarked by election day that arrive after election day, in states across the country. This could be enormous.www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
[image or embed]
— jen rice (@jenrice.bsky.social) November 10, 2025 at 11:19 AM
Alexia Kemerling, director of accessible democracy at the American Association of People with Disabilities, was also hopeful.
"We really hope that the Supreme Court takes the responsibility seriously to make sure that every voter can use their power," she said. "'The millions of voters with disabilities who cannot vote in person or voters who are overseas who cannot vote in person—this is their only way to participate in the system. They should not be disenfranchised for the ways that our system moves slowly."
The New York Times noted that Watson v. RNC "is a potential blockbuster and adds to the court's other elections and voting cases for the term, which include a case about who can sue to challenge Illinois' mail-in ballot rules and a challenge to the Louisiana congressional district map that could gut a remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular